NEGATIVE DECLARATION - San Diego · 2019-01-14 · NEGATIVE DECLARATION T HE C ITY OF SAN DIEGO SUBJECT: Project No. 545299 SCH No. N/A Sorrento Valley~MO: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

T HE C ITY OF SAN DIEGO

SUBJECT:

Project No. 545299 SCH No. N/A

Sorrento Valley~MO: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT for the operation and tenant improvements of a Marijuana Outlet (MO). The~ ~-square-foot tenant spac·e would be within an existing 50,284 square-foot vacant bui lding, which was previously scientific research offices. Additionally, the project includes various site improvements including reconstruction of three d riveways t o current City standards, and parking lot restriping that wou ld include motorcycle and accessible parking. The developed 12.04-acre project site is located at 10150 Sorrento Valley Road. The site is designated Industrial and zoned IL-3-1 within the Torrey Pines Community Plan area. Additiona lly the project site is located within the Coastal Zone Boundary, Airport Land Use Compatibility Overlay Zone (Mar ine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar), Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Noise Contours (MCAS Miramar 60-65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)), Airport Influence Area (Review Area 1 ), Federa l Aviation Administ ration (FM) Part 77 Noticing Area, Airports Safety Zone (MCAS Miramar Accident Potential Zone 2), Coastal Overlay Zone (Appealable and Non-Appealable), Community Plan Implementation Overlay Zone-A, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, Parking Impact Overlay Zone (Coast al and Campus), Prime Industrial Lands, Special Flood Hazar.d Area (100 Year Floodway and 100 Year Floodplain), and the Transit Priority Area . (LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot No. 3, Map No. 435). Applicant: Sean St. Peter.

UPDATE: January 11, 2019. Revisions have been made to this document when compared to the final Negative Declaration (ND). The Marijuana Outlet has been reduced in size and the final environmental document has been revised to reflect the current project scope. More Specifically, clarifications have been made to the following sections: Subject, Description of Project, Surrounding Land Uses and Setting, and the Transportation/Traffic Description. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15073.5(c)(4), the addition of new information that clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications does not require recirculation as there are no new impacts and no new mitigation identified. An environmental document need only be recirculated when there is the identification of new significant environmental impacts or the addit ion of a new mitigation measure required to avoid a significant environmental impact. The text modifications within the final environmental document do not affect the environmental analysis or conclusions of the MND. Previous revisions

1

were made when the MND was originally finaled and are represented in a single strikeout/underline format. Current revisions to the environmental document have been made and are reflected in a double stFil<ethrnugh/underline format.

UPDATE: September 5. 2018 Revisions and/or minor corrections have been made to this document when compared to the draft Negative Declaration (ND). More specifically, the Subject was revised to reflect the correct project name. The revisions are shown in strikethrough underline format. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15073.5 (c)(4), the addition of new information that clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modification does not require recirculation as there are no new impacts and no new mitigation identified. An environmental document need only be recirculated when there is identification of new significant environmental impact or the addition of a new mitigation measure required to avoid a significant environmental impact. Modifications within the environmental document do not affect the environmental analysis or conclusions of the final ND.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

See attached Initial Study.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:

See attached Initial Study.

Ill. DETERMINATION:

The City of San Diego has conducted an Initial Study and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required.

IV. DOCUMENTATION:

The attached Initial Study documents the reasons to support the above Determination.

V. MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM:

NONE REQUIRED

2

VI. PUBLIC REVIEW 0·1STRIBUTION:

Draft copies or notice of this Negative Declaration were distributed to:

STATE

Coastal Commission (47)

CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Mayor's Office Councilmember Bry, District 1 City Attorney (93C) Development Services Department

EAS Planning Review Engineering Review Transportation DPM

Library, Government Documents (81) San Diego Central Library (81A) North University Branch Library (81JJJ)

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, GROUPS AND INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS

Torrey Pines Community Planning Board (469) Torrey Pines Association (472) CA Department of Parks and Recreation Southern Service Center (474) Crest Canyon Citizens Advisory Committee (475) California State Parks (476) Friends of Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve (477) Pamela Lewis

VII. RESULTS OF PUBLIC REVIEW:

( ) No comments were received during the public input period.

( X) Comments were received but did not address the accuracy or completeness of the draft environmental document. No response is necessary and the letters are incorporated herein.

( ) Comments addressing the accuracy or completeness of the draft environmental document were received during the public input period. The letters and responses are incorporated herein.

3

Copies of the draft Negative Declaration, the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and any Init ial Study material are available in the office of the Land Development Review Division for review, or for purchase at the cost of reproduction.

,j ~ Jv'- ~-Elizabeth Shearer-Nguyen Senior Planner Development Services Department

Analyst: M. Dresser

Attachments: Initial Study Checklist Figure 1 - Location Map Figure 2 - Site Plan

4

Ju ly 20, 2018 Date of Draft Report

September 5, 2018 Date of Final Report

January 10, 2019 Date of Final Report

10

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

1. Project title/Project number: Sorrento Valley MO / 545299 2. Lead agency name and address: City of San Diego, 1222 First Avenue, MS-501, San Diego,

California 92101 3. Contact person and phone number: M. Dresser / (619) 446-5404 4. Project location: 10150 Sorrento Valley Road, San Diego, California 92121 5. Project Applicant/Sponsor's name and address: Sean St. Peter, 4321 Balboa Avenue, Suite No.162,

San Diego, California 92117 6. General/Community Plan designation: Industrial Employment / Industrial 7. Zoning: IL-3-1 8. Description of project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to, later phases of the project,

and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.):

The project proposes a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the operation and tenant improvements of a Marijuana Outlet (MO) within a 3,980 3,475-square-foot tenant space of an existing 50,284-square-foot building. Tenant improvements would consist of walls for new offices, secured bullet resistant glass, a separate reception room area, common areas, and converting an existing office into a secured vault. The project includes a 494-square-foot entry sales area, 2,323-square-foot main sales area, 430 245-square-foot office and hallway, and a 169-square-foot storage and vault area. No additional habitable space is proposed. Hours of operation would be Monday-Sunday 7AM to 9PM. Minor site improvements include the reconstruction of three driveways to current City standards, and parking lot restriping to include motorcycle and accessible parking. The minimum parking required for the site is 375 374 parking stalls, of which 20 18 are required for the MO. The project site would contain 482 parking stalls, including ten accessible stalls, and an additional 13 motorcycle stalls.

There is no grading proposed for the project.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

The developed 12.04-acre project site is located at 10150 Sorrento Valley Road. The site contains three industrial tilt-up structures comprised of 50,284, 21,782, and 40,271-square-feet, respectively, and associated landscaping, hardscape and surface parking lot. The 3,980 3,475-square-foot tenant space is located with the 50,284-square-foot building. Sorrento Valley Road borders the site to the north, Multi Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) to the south, Industrial development to the west, and a vacant undeveloped lot to the east. Carrol Creek runs east to west through the project site immediately south of the existing buildings and north of existing parking. A portion of the project site is within the MHPA, however, railroad

11

tracks bisect the property south of the existing parking and to the north of the MHPA. The primary access to the property is from Sorrento Valley Road. In addition, the project site is currently served by existing public services and utilities. The project site is designated Industrial and zoned IL-3-1 within the Torrey Pines Community Plan area. Additionally, the project site is within the Coastal Zone, Airport Land Use Compatibility Overlay Zone (Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar), Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Noise Contours (MCAS Miramar 60-65 CNEL), Airport Influence Area (Review Area 1), Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 Noticing Area, Airports Safety Zone (MCAS Miramar Accident Potential Zone 2), Coastal Overlay Zone (Appealable and Non-Appealable), Community Plan Implementation Overlay Zone-A, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, Parking Impact Overlay Zone (Coastal and Campus), Prime Industrial Lands, Special Flood Hazard Area (100 Year Floodway and 100 Year Floodplain), and the Transit Priority Area. Furthermore, the project is located in a developed area currently served by existing services and utilities.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

None required. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested

consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Consultation in accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code 21080.3.1 was

determined not to be necessary as the project would occur within a tenant space and site improvements (driveway configuration) would occur within previously disturbed areas. Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

12

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Population/Housing Emissions

Agriculture and Hazards & Hazardous Public Services Forestry Resources Materials

Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation

Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic

Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Tribal Cultural Resources

Geology/Soils Noise Utilities/Service System Mandatory Findings Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:

The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant

effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

is required.

The proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (a) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant

effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or (MITIGATED) NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or (MITIGATED) NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

13

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the

information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact answer should be explained where it is based on project specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis.)

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as

project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must

indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation

measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses”, as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been

adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or (mitigated) negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and

adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated”,

describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts

(e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted

should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should

normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Issue Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

14

I. AESTHETICS – Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

The project site is developed with existing structures. The project proposes interior renovations with minor site improvements and would therefore, not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. No impacts would result.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

No such scenic resources or state scenic highways are located on, near, or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surrounding area as the project proposes interior renovations with minor site improvements. No impact would result.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Exterior lighting currently exists at the project site. The project would implement interior renovations with minor site improvements. No exterior lighting is proposed, due to the nature of the project. No impact would occur.

II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. – Would the project::

a) Converts Prime Farmland, Unique

Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

The project site is within a developed area and the project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural uses.


Impact




Impact No Impact

15

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?

Refer to response II (a), above. No impact would occur.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 1220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?


d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Refer to response II (a), above. No impacts would occur.

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?


III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations – Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct

implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan, and Community Plan land use designations and the underlying zone. No impact would occur.

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Construction Short-term emissions associated with the project could temporarily increase the emissions of dust and other pollutants. However, this increase would be minimal and short-term in duration. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.


Impact




Impact No Impact

16

Operation Long-term emission impacts are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources related to any change caused by a project. The project is consistent with the General Plan, Community Plan and the zoning designation. Project emissions over the long-term are not anticipated to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impacts would be less than significant.

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

The project would be consistent with the General Plan, Community Plan and the zoning designation. The project is not anticipated to result in the emissions of dust and other pollutants. However, emissions would be temporary and short-term in duration; implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards.

d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

The project is not anticipated to result in the creation of objectionable odors. Therefore, impacts associated would be less than significant.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Have substantial adverse effects, either

directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

The project site is currently developed with industrial buildings and associated hardscape and landscape. The project would occur within a tenant space that would require interior renovations and minor site improvements. No impact would occur.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?


Impact




Impact No Impact

17

See response IV (a), above. No impact would occur.

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Carroll Creek is located immediately south of the existing industrial building. The project would occur within a previously developed area and would not have an adverse effect directly or indirectly to the creek. No impact would occur.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

The project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species as the project would occur within previously developed areas. No impact would occur.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

The project would not conflict with any local policies and/or ordinances protecting biological resources, as the project would occur within previously developed areas. No impact would occur.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Although MHPA lands occur on site, the project would occur within a tenant space of an existing structure. As described in the project description, the project proposes interior renovations. Minor site improvements are proposed, but would occur within a developed portion on the north side of the existing building, where the MHPA is located on the southern portion of the site. Impacts to the MHPA would not result. Therefore no impact would occur.


Impact




Impact No Impact

18

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in

the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

The City of San Diego criteria for determination of historic significance, pursuant to CEQA is evaluated based upon age (over 45 years), location, context, association with an important event, uniqueness, or structural integrity of the building. In addition, projects requiring the demolition of structures that are 45 years or older are also reviewed for historic significance in compliance with CEQA. The building was constructed in 1979 making it 38 years in age. Therefore no impact would occur.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

The project site is located on the City of San Diego's Historical Resources Sensitivity Map. Therefore, a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) digital database was conducted to determine the presence or absence of potential resources within the project site. Based upon the project site’s location and the previously developed nature. There is no potential impact to any unique or non-unique historical resources. No impacts would result.

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

According to the Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California (1975) published by the California Division of Mines and Geology, the project site appears to be underlain by Young Alluvial Flood Plain and Ardath Shale Formation, which are assigned a low and high sensitivity rating for paleontological resources, respectively. The project site is currently developed. Furthermore, the project proposes to utilize an existing building. Additionally, this project does not propose any grading. Therefore, no impact would occur.

d) Disturb and human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

The project site is currently developed. Furthermore, the project proposes to utilize an existing building. No impact would occur.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death

involving:


Impact




Impact No Impact

19

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

The site is not traversed by an active, potentially active, or inactive fault and is not within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. The project would utilize the existing building and require interior renovations and minor site improvements. No additional habitable space is proposed. Any potential impacts from regional geologic hazards would remain less than significant.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

The project site is located within a seismically active southern California region, and is potentially subject to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking along major earthquake faults. Seismic shaking at the site could be generated by any number of known active and potentially active faults in the region. No additional habitable space is proposed. Any potential impacts from regional geologic hazards would remain less than significant.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Refer to response VI (a) (ii), above. Liquefaction occurs when loose, unconsolidated, water-laden soils are subject to shaking, causing the soils to lose cohesion. Any potential impacts from regional geologic hazards would remain less than significant.

iv) Landslides?

According to the City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study Maps, the project site is located in Geologic Hazard Category 21 and 31. Hazard Category 21 is defined as Landslide; Confirmed, known, or highly suspected. Hazard Category 31 is defined as liquifaction; high potential- shallow groundwater major drainages, hydraulic fills. Any potential impacts from regional geologic hazards would remain less than significant.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

The project site is currently developed. The project would require interior renovations and minor site improvements. Grading is not required, therefore soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would not result. No impact would occur.

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site


Impact




Impact No Impact

20

landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Refer to response VI (a) (i), above. No impact would occur.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

No additional habitable space is proposed. Any potential impacts from regional geologic hazards would remain less than significant.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

The project site is located within an area developed with existing infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer lines) and does not propose any septic system. In addition, the project would not require the construction of any new facilities as it relates to wastewater, as services are available to serve the project. No impact would occur.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,

either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) outlines the actions that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of State greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. A CAP Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is part of the CAP and contains measures that are required to be implemented on a project-by-project basis to ensure that the specified emission targets identified in the CAP are achieved. The project is consistent with the existing General Plan and Community Plan land use and zoning designations. The project proposes a use permit that would not result in the expansion or enlargement of a building, therefore the project would only be subject to step one of the CAP Consistency Checklist. The project would not result in a significant cumulative impact to GHG emissions. Impact would be less than significant.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The project is consistent with the existing General and Community Plan land use and zoning designations. No impact would occur.


Impact




Impact No Impact

21

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public

or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Due to the nature of the project, the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not occur. The project would not generate hazardous emissions. No part of the project involves the handling of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. No impact would occur.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

As noted above in response VIII (a), no health risks related to the storage, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not result from the implementation of the project. The project would not be associated with such impacts.

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

There are no existing or proposed schools within a quarter mile from the project site. No impact would occur.

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

A hazardous waste site records search was completed utilizing Geotracker in May 2017. The records search showed that no hazardous waste sites exist onsite or within 1,000-feet of the project site. No impact would occur.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two mile of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

The project site is located within the MCAS Miramar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Review of the ALUCP identifies the project is mapped within the Airport Land Use Compatibility


Impact




Impact No Impact

22

Overlay Zone (MCAS Miramar), Airport Influence Area (Review Area 1), and Airports Safety Zone (MCAS Miramar Accident Potential Zone 2). The project would occur within an existing building requiring interior renovations and minor site improvements. Although the project site is located within an airport land use plan, the project would not result in a safety hazard in the project area. Therefore, no impact is identified.

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

The project is not located with the vicinity of a private airstrip.

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The project would be located within a developed area and would not interfere with the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. No roadway improvements are proposed that would interfere with circulation or access, and all improvements would occur onsite. No impact would occur.

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

The project would occur within a tenant space within an existing building requiring interior renovations and minor site improvements. No structures would be constructed. No impact would occur.

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or

waste discharge requirements?

The project does not involve the development of new structures. Although minor site improvements would occur, the project would comply with the City’s Storm Water Regulations and would therefore not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. No impact would occur.


Impact




Impact No Impact

23

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

The project does not require the construction of wells. No impact would occur.

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

The project site is currently developed. The project would not alter the existing drainage pattern or alter the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. No impact would occur.

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

The project would not alter the existing drainage pattern or alter the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. No impact would occur.

e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Due to the nature of this project, any runoff from the site is not anticipated to exceed the capacity of existing storm water systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff that would require new or expanded facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?


Impact




Impact No Impact

24

No structures would be constructed. The project would comply with all City storm water quality standards during construction of the site improvements. Appropriate BMP’s would be implemented to ensure that water quality is not degraded. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

The project does not propose any housing. No impact would occur.

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

The 100-year flood hazard area is mapped immediately south of the existing structures along Carrol Creek. No structures are located within the flood hazard area and no structures would be constructed. The project would require interior renovations and minor site improvements. No impacts would occur.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: a) Physically divide an established

community?

The project is located within an existing industrial development. The project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

The project would be consistent with the land use designations of the General and Community Plan, and the underlying zone. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. No impact would occur.

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

The project would require interior renovations and minor site improvements. The project would not conflict with any conservation plan for the site. No impact would result.


Impact




Impact No Impact

25

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a

known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

The project site is not currently being used for mineral resource extraction and is zoned and developed for industrial use rather than mining uses. Further, the project site is within an urbanized area, surrounded by light industrial uses; therefore, the project site would not be suitable for mining if mineral deposits were located on site. No impact would occur.

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

See XI (a), above.

XII. NOISE – Would the project result in:

a) Generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

The project proposes a Marijuana Outlet (MO) with interior renovations within an existing tenant space with minor site improvements. The project would not result in excessive noise. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

b) Generation of, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?

The project does not propose any major construction activities, such as erecting new structures. No ground borne vibrations would be generated. No impact would result.

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

The project would utilize a tenant space within an existing building and site improvements would be implemented. Ambient noise levels would remain similar to what exists currently. Impacts would be less than significant.

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing without the project?


Impact




Impact No Impact

26

Interior improvements and activities associated with driveway reconfiguration would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels, but would be temporary and short-term in nature. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the San Diego Municipal Code, Article 9.5, Noise Abatement and Control. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would the project expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels?

According to the adopted MCAS Miramar ALUCP, the project site is located within the Miramar Airport Influence Area. The project is located within the 60-65 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour and outside of the overflight areas. As such, the project site would not be exposed to excessive aircraft noise. No impact would result.

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impacts would occur.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in

an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

The project site is located in a developed industrial park and is surrounded by similar development. The site currently receives water and sewer service from the City, and no extension of infrastructure to new areas is required. No roadway improvements are proposed as part of the project. As such, the project would not substantially increase housing or population growth in the area. No impacts would occur.

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No such displacement would result as the project does not propose any housing. No impact would occur.

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?


Impact




Impact No Impact

27

Refer to XIII (b). No impact would occur.

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire protection

The project site is located in an urbanized and developed area where fire protection services are already provided. The project would not adversely affect existing levels of fire protection services to the area, and would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing governmental facilities. No impacts would occur.

ii) Police protection

The project site is located in an urbanized and developed area within the City of San Diego where police protection services are already provided. The project would not adversely affect existing levels of police protection services or create significant new significant demand, and would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing governmental facilities. No impacts would occur.

iii) Schools

The project would not affect existing levels of public services and would not require the construction or expansion of a school facility. The project site is located in an urbanized and developed area where public school services are available. The project would not significantly increase the demand on public schools over that which currently exists and is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in demand for public educational services. As such, no impacts related to school services occur.

iv) Parks

The project site is located in an urbanized and developed area where City-operated parks are available. The project would not significantly increase the demand on existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities over that which presently exists and is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in demand for parks or other offsite recreational facilities. As such, no impacts related to parks occur.

v) Other public facilities

The project site is located in an urbanized and developed area where City services are already available The project would not adversely affect existing levels of public services and not require the construction or expansion of an existing governmental facility. Therefore, no new public facilities beyond existing conditions would be required.


Impact




Impact No Impact

28

XV. RECREATION

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

The project would not adversely affect the availability of and/or need for new or expanded recreational resources. The project would not adversely affect existing levels of public services and would not require the construction or expansion of an existing governmental facility. The project would not significantly increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore the project is not anticipated to result in the use of available parks or facilities such that substantial deterioration occurs, or that would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities to satisfy demand. As such, no significant impacts related to recreational facilities have been identified.

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Refer to XV (a) above. The project does not propose recreation facilities nor require the construction or expansion of any such facilities.

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project? a) Conflict with an applicable plan,

ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

An Access Analysis Study for the 10150 Sorrento Valley Road Marijuana Outlet (Darnell & Associates, Inc. June 28, 2018) was prepared for the project. The project is anticipated to generate approximately 995 average weekday trips, with 90 AM peak hour trips (45 in and 45 out) and 160 PM peak hour trips (80 in and 80 out). The project analysis does not identify any significant traffic impacts on roadways or intersections analyzed for existing plus project conditions and near term plus project conditions. Additionally, a Memorandum for the Sorrento Valley Marijuana Project Located at 10150 Sorrento Valley Road (Darnell & Associates, Inc. December 9, 2018) was prepared for the project. The project is anticipated to generate approximately 875 average weekday trips, with 79 AM peak hour trips (40


Impact




Impact No Impact

29

in and 39 out) and 140 PM peak hour trips (70 in and 70 out). Additionally, the AM peak hour at the I-805 Northbound off-ramp – Vista Sorrento Parkway/Sorrento Valley Road – Mira Mesa Boulevard intersection was reanalyzed using a more conservative traffic volume and a 160 second cycle length. It was concluded that the reduction of the project square footage to 3,500-square feet or less would not conflict with the City of San Diego’s Significance Threshold of 1.0 second delay. Furthermore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The project is not expected to cause a significant short-term or long-term increase in traffic volumes, and therefore, would not adversely affect existing levels of service along area roadways. Impacts would be less than significant.

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Refer to response XVI (a). The project would not result in exceedance of the City’s Significance Determination Thresholds (City 2011) nor would it adversely affect any mode of transportation in the area. Therefore, the project would not result in conflict with any applicable congestion management program, level of service standards or travel demand measures. Impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

Implementation of the project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. As stated in Section VIII (e), MCAS Miramar Airport is located approximately 2 miles from the project site. According to the adopted MCAS Miramar ALUCP, the project site is located within the Miramar Airport Influence Area, Review Area 1. The project site is located outside the Safety Zones established for MCAS Miramar and within the 60-65 dB CNEL. The proposed use would be compatible with this noise environment. As such, the project would not conflict with the MCAS Miramar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Because the project would utilize an existing structure and develop no new structures, an FAA Part 77 determination, as well as an ALUCP consistency determination are not required. Therefore, no impact would result.

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?


Impact




Impact No Impact

30

The project has been reviewed and is consistent with applicable regulations. The project would not include any project elements that could potentially create a hazard to the public. No impact would result.

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

The project would utilize a tenant space within an existing structure that would require interior renovations as well as minor site improvements and would therefore not result in inadequate emergency access. No impact would occur.

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

The project site would make no changes to existing bike lanes or access to transit and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. No impact would occur.

XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the

California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

The project would not cause a substantial adverse effect to tribal cultural resources, as there are no recorded sites listed or sites eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined by the Public Resources Code. No impact would result.

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Tribal Cultural Resources include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, and sacred places or objects that have cultural value or significance to a Native American Tribe. Tribal Cultural Resources include “non-unique archaeological resources” that, instead of being important for


Impact




Impact No Impact

31

“scientific” value as a resource, can also be significant because of the sacred and/or cultural tribal value of the resource. Tribal representatives are considered experts appropriate for providing substantial evidence regarding the locations, types, and significance of tribal cultural resources within their traditionally and cultural affiliated geographic area (PRC § 21080.3.1(a)). City, as lead agency, determined that Tribal Cultural Resources pursuant to subdivision Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) would not be potentially be impacted through project implementation. The project would utilize a tenant space within an existing structure that would require interior renovations as well as minor site improvements.

XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment

requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

Implementation of the project would not interrupt existing sewer service to the project site or other surrounding development. The project is not anticipated to generate significant amount of wastewater. Wastewater facilities used by the project would be operated in accordance with the applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Existing sewer infrastructure exists within roadways surrounding the project site and adequate services are available to serve the project. Thus, impact would be less than significant.

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

See XVII (a) above. Adequate services are available to serve the site and the project would not require the construction or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

The project would not exceed the capacity of the existing storm water system and require the construction of new or expanded treatment facilities of which would cause significant environmental effects.

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

The project does not meet the CEQA significance threshold requiring the need the preparation of a water supply assessment. The site currently receives water service from the City, and adequate


Impact




Impact No Impact

32

services are available to serve the project without requiring new or expanded entitlements. No impact would occur.

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

The project would not adversely affect existing wastewater treatment services. Adequate services are available to serve the site without requiring new or expanded facilities. No impact would occur.

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

The project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projects disposal needs. The City has enacted codes and policies aimed at helping it achieve this diversion level, including the Refuse and Recyclable Materials Storage Regulations (Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article 2 Division 8), Recycling Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 6, Article 6, Division 7), and the Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Deposit Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 6, Article 6, Division 6). The project would comply with these codes. Impacts would be less than significant.

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste?

The project would not result in a solid waste impact. Please refer to section XVII (f), above. No impact would occur.

XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE – a) Does the project have the potential to

degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

As documented in this Initial Study, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. As such, no mitigation measures would be incorporated as all impacts would be less than significant.


Impact




Impact No Impact

33

b) Does the project have impacts that areindividually limited but cumulativelyconsiderable (“cumulativelyconsiderable” means that theincremental effects of a project areconsiderable when viewed inconnection with the effects of pastprojects, the effects of other currentprojects, and the effects of probablefuture projects)?

As documented in this Initial Study, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. As such, no mitigation measures would be required. Other future project within the surrounding neighborhood or community would be required to comply with applicable local, state and Federal regulations to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant, or to the extent possible. Therefore, the project would not contribute potentially significant cumulative environmental impacts.

c) Does the project have environmentaleffects that will cause substantialadverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

As discussed throughout this document, it is not anticipated that implementation of the project would create conditions that would significantly directly or indirectly impact human beings. Mitigation measures are not required. For this reason, environmental effects fall below the thresholds established by CEQA and the City and therefore, would not result in impacts.

34

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST REFERENCES

I. Aesthetics / Neighborhood Character X City of San Diego General Plan X Community Plans: Torrey Pines Community Plan II. Agricultural Resources & Forest Resources City of San Diego General Plan U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey - San Diego Area, California, Part I and II, 1973 California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) Site Specific Report: III. Air Quality California Clean Air Act Guidelines (Indirect Source Control Programs) 1990 Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) - APCD Site Specific Report: IV. Biology X City of San Diego, Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), Subarea Plan, 1997 X City of San Diego, MSCP, "Vegetation Communities with Sensitive Species and Vernal Pools"

Maps, 1996 X City of San Diego, MSCP, "Multiple Habitat Planning Area" maps, 1997 Community Plan - Resource Element California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database, "State and

Federally-listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California," January 2001 California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database, "State and

Federally-listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California, "January 2001 City of San Diego Land Development Code Biology Guidelines Site Specific Report: V. Cultural Resources (includes Historical Resources) X City of San Diego Historical Resources Guidelines X City of San Diego Archaeology Library Historical Resources Board List Community Historical Survey: Site Specific Report: VI. Geology/Soils X City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey - San Diego Area, California, Part I and II,

December 1973 and Part III, 1975 Site Specific Report: VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions X Site Specific Report: Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist, June 2017

35

VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials X San Diego County Hazardous Materials Environmental Assessment Listing San Diego County Hazardous Materials Management Division FAA Determination State Assessment and Mitigation, Unauthorized Release Listing, Public Use Authorized Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Site Specific Report: IX. Hydrology/Water Quality Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) X Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Flood Insurance Program-Flood

Boundary and Floodway Map Clean Water Act Section 303(b) list, http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/303d_lists.html Site Specific Report: X. Land Use and Planning X City of San Diego General Plan X Community Plan X Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan: MCAS Miramar X City of San Diego Zoning Maps FAA Determination Other Plans: XI. Mineral Resources California Department of Conservation - Division of Mines and Geology, Mineral Land

Classification Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 153 - Significant Resources Maps Site Specific Report: XII. Noise X City of San Diego General Plan Community Plan San Diego International Airport - Lindbergh Field CNEL Maps Brown Field Airport Master Plan CNEL Maps X MCAS Miramar Airport Master Plan CNEL Maps Montgomery Field CNEL Maps San Diego Association of Governments - San Diego Regional Average Weekday Traffic

Volumes San Diego Metropolitan Area Average Weekday Traffic Volume Maps, SANDAG Site Specific Report: XIII. Paleontological Resources X City of San Diego Paleontological Guidelines Deméré, Thomas A., and Stephen L. Walsh, "Paleontological Resources City of San Diego,"

Department of Paleontology San Diego Natural History Museum, 1996

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/303d_lists.html

36

X Kennedy, Michael P., and Gary L. Peterson, "Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California. Del Mar, La Jolla, Point Loma, La Mesa, Poway, and SW 1/4 Escondido 7 1/2 Minute Quadrangles," California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 200, Sacramento, 1975 Kennedy, Michael P., and Siang S. Tan, "Geology of National City, Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California," Map Sheet 29, 1977 Site Specific Report:

XIV. Population / HousingCity of San Diego General PlanCommunity PlanSeries 11/Series 12 Population Forecasts, SANDAGOther:

XV. Public ServicesCity of San Diego General PlanCommunity Plan

XVI. Recreational ResourcesCity of San Diego General PlanCommunity PlanDepartment of Park and RecreationCity of San Diego - San Diego Regional Bicycling MapAdditional Resources:

XVII. Transportation / CirculationCity of San Diego General PlanCommunity PlanSan Diego Metropolitan Area Average Weekday Traffic Volume Maps, SANDAGSan Diego Region Weekday Traffic Volumes, SANDAG

X Site Specific Report: Access Analysis Study for Marijuana Outlet Project 10150 Sorrento ValleyRoad; prepared by Darnell & Associates, Inc., dated June 28, 2018.Memorandum for Sorrento Valley Marijuana Project located 10150 Sorrento Valley Road;prepared by Darnell & Associates, Inc., dated December 9, 2018

XVIII. UtilitiesSite Specific Report:

XIX. Water ConservationSunset Magazine, New Western Garden Book, Rev. ed. Menlo Park, CA: Sunset Magazine

Revised: October 11, 2013

Project Location Map NorthSorrento Valley MMCC– 10150 Sorrento Valley RoadPROJECT NO. 545299

Project Site

Site Plan NorthSorrento Valley MMCC– 10150 Sorrento Valley RoadPROJECT NO. 545299